Should College Athletes be Paid? (Essay Sample)

Student’s name: Professor’s name: Course: Date: Should College Athletes be Paid? The debate on the issue whether college athletes should receive payment or not has been going on for a very long time. The reason for the debate is that each year, student athletes, especially in the USA, end up signing the Student-Athlete form. The form given by the NCAA is signed with the perspective of relinquishing their right to attain disbursement for the use of their name and image. College student athletes devote their time practicing for their colleges and most of their time, and they are not paid for their work (Coplin 5-9). The reason as to why they are not paid is the fact that the NCAA looks at the students as youngsters; hence, they are not in the position to receive payment because of playing their sports. The challenging thing about college athletes not being paid despite being the main players in college sports is that their coaches earn millions of dollars in salaries and endorsement of deals (Comeaux 13). Such a situation is very detrimental since college athletes do not get a penny, and yet they are the main players; hence, it is only right if they are paid, as it is their right. Most college competitors sacrifice their physical condition and steadiness to help their college’s income, but the only entity that stands between well-off prospects as an alternative of just an idea is the dishonest NCAA (Griffin 20). Essentially, one may thing that the NCAA (National College Athletic Association) and the athletic boards in the United States are corrupt and money hungry entities. It is true because according to the U.S New Reports, NCAA generates more than 1 billion dollars from the NCAA Men’s and women basketball tournaments (Kaser and Oelkers 33-38). The outcome of the spending the generated billions is what makes the athletes’ welfare unsatisfied as they do not get to see any of their money. Furthermore, not all sports bring in money as much as basketball and football in universities do. Therefore, the insinuation is that not all sports would be paid for as they do not bring in much revenue as compared to the above-mentioned games. Consequently, a college graduate is in the position to make a great deal of more cash over a lifetime as compared to a non-graduate. It is true because a full athletic scholarship does not offer free education. In addition, the athletic scholarship is only a one-year agreement that can be terminated by the coach at any time and for any reason (Coplin 10). The perspective of either the university or coach terminated an athlete’s contract is detrimental because it shows that the athlete has no right for his participation in any sports (Kissinger and Miller 53-57). It also shows that despite being the central player in sports, the athlete has no right, hence, the reason for no compensation, and yet they are supposed to be paid. Moreover, the primary rationale why stadiums and arenas are filled up is because of players who are not paid. Some coaches get a percentage of the tickets revenue from the home games, whereas college athletes get nothing. Under the supervision of coaches, college athletes can be termed as slaves to the schools and the coaches. It is true because coaches treat the athletes as workhorses (Sack and Parseghian 9-11). Despite the fact that college players get scholarships, the demand put on students by their coaches are such that they cannot take advantage of their academic opportunities. Colleges do not offer student-athletes access to the full and meaningful education to make sure that they have every chance of getting a degree (Griffin 45). Essentially, the insinuation is it is a waste of time if the athlete’s future is not secured. Therefore, the point of view is that college athletes need compensation for their hard work in terms of money, and not scholarships that do not offer a sure future. It is true that the perspective of athletes acting as slaves ought to be settled for a greater outcome of college athletes and institutional graduation rates (Coplin 4). The enormous amount of money being generated by college athletes has led to numerous questions such as whether college athletes can be looked at as armatures any longer (Griffin 22). The outcome of issues on college athletes has led a group of former players to file an antitrust lawsuit to claim that student-athletes are entitled to the portion they are contributed to the universities. The former players also entail that their names and likeness on merchandises like video games are being used; hence, it is only fair if they are compensated. Essentially, what is happening in the USA is an indication that college athletes are aware of their rights; therefore, it is essential for compensation to be initiated (Smith 23-28). The significance of compensating college athletes is that they will be motivated to compete, and, as a result, start showing better results. Paying college payment is significant because they help colleges become known, and as a result, the athletes ought to be taken care of as they generate significant revenues. Compensating athletes less as compared to professionals is essential, as it will be better than not receiving anything. It would be a good call if college athletes were paid, but the NCAA perceives that it is not right to pay a student for him or her play. The perception by the NCAA that the thought of paying a student to play not being right is vague. It is vague because the players’ rights are being neglected. Had their pay been cut, many people, especially the NCAA and the coaches, would grumble and would be dissatisfied. Thus, it is only right if both parties discuss the significance of paying college athletes. On several occasions, the NCAA has demonstrated that student athletes should not receive payment despite the fact that they are the primary contributors to the revenues they achieve. The rationale being offered by the NCAA is that they offer college athletes scholarships that most top students receive. The scholarships cover their tuition and other expenses, which the NCAA perceives is enough. It is not right because college athletes use their talent to profit the NCAA and coaches in general (Masteralexis and Hums 27). The scholarships are not sufficient as in case the athletes may get injured while on the pitch, they might end up being dismissed. The outcome of the dismissal often leads to loss of a lifetime opportunity, mostly because of lack of cash to pay for their medical bills (Grant, Leadley, and Zygmont 43). Paying athletes for what they are doing for colleges is the right path that will lead to a positive relation between athletes, coaches, parents, and the NCAA. Collegiate athletes fully participate in the college games, and, as a result, generate essential results for their colleges. The presence of positive results being made by athletes in colleges is imperative, and the best positive results can be associated with compensation. More to say, it is not as if the NCAA does athletes a favor but it is the athletes’ right to attain compensation. A tremendous amount of time tends to go into an athlete’s respective sport. The estimated time frame that the athlete spends in sports is 50 hours each week (Grant, Leadley, and Zygmont 11-15). Compensating for 50 hours each week is not possible, and hence, the appropriate step that needs to be made is to pay athletes for their efforts. Fundamentally, compensating college sportsmen and women will offer them an assurance that in case they do not receive education, they will succeed in sports.It is true that college athletes are college students and not professionals, but it is not wrong to compensate them for taking part in a sport. The thought that college athletes receive payment in the form of scholarships is not right. Obviously, the NCAA, coaches, and universities claim that athletes receive payment via the scholarship (Masteralexis, Barr, and Hums 63). Their perception is outdated because they use excuses to evade paying athletes. Paying athletes in the same way as professionals is not right, but at least compensating them for the games they play is significant. Essentially, the insinuation on the NCAA is that corruption is spread within the NCAA and other relevant stakeholders, and, as a result, athletes end up suffering (Griffin 41-43). Evidently, it is only right if a panel of human rights is organized to discuss the significance of compensating athletes. College athletics is a profitable business, and hence, proper strategies ought to be implemented to make sure that the athletes are paid their dues. Athletes generate money for their schools in a variety of ways. An example of such way of advertising is through jerseys or TV networks that broadcast games and spectators. In addition, college athletes make money for the community in the case where some public event takes place (Masteralexis, Barr, and Hums 15-18). The contribution made by athletes to the community is through shops, bars, and parking attendants. The rights of college athletes have to be recognized because they are doing better than harm at the college level, community, and government. The right thing has to be based on the perspective of being compensated because college athletes generate positive results for society. Recognizing the efforts made by college athletes will act as a motivating factor.The NCAA has been quoted saying that it does not want to pay college athletes because athletes should not be influenced by money in the same way as professional athletes. Clearly, they have many excuses, but the issue of protecting college athletes from distraction is out of the query (Smith 46). Paying college athletes at the early stages of their sport career will help them and not make them irresponsible. The NCAA and coaches can mold the athletes by guiding them on how to spend their cash because it is their money. ...